Views: 282

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Authentic IMO.

I agree with Randy. Authentic.

I think it looks a little stiff, and the R is off a little.

Well, I do agree that the R is a little off, Terrier. Actually, I don't think you typically see the first line of the R extend that far, if at all, below the second line. That does seem a little unusual to me.

The "R" is a little unusual but I have seen similar ones before. The rest of the autograph looks good to me but of course only my opinion.

I do still think it's likely authentic, however.

Ruth is tough now, in light of the "questionable" balls that were authenticated by JSA and PSA a few years ago.  its tough to find good, reliable reference points.  Here is one that I believe to be authentic.  Rather than looking at each letter technically, I look at the overall signature and the one in question just seems to lack the "bounciness" and feel of an authentic Ruth.  but like Randy says, its just an opinion.

I agree, Terrier, that flow and bounce are really significant. Because when we sign our own names, we don't hesitate, we just do it quickly and naturally. The one you present definitely has better of both than the one at the top of the page. Plus, the one you show has what I would call almost a classic Ruth R.

Regarding the questionable Ruths authenticated by PSA and JSA, what time period are you talking about? I have one authenticated in 2005.



  • Add Photos
  • View All


  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2023   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service